Windows Phone Marketplace bans the GPL, and the App Store should too

A developer has finally noticed a condition tucked away in Microsoft's Windows …

A blog post made Wednesday by Red Hat employee Jan Wildeboer argued that the terms and conditions that developers agree to before submitting software to Microsoft for inclusion in Xbox LIVE Arcade and Windows Phone 7 Marketplace prohibits the use of copyleft licenses like the GPL. Any license that mandates source code redistribution or a compulsory right to produce derivative works is banned.

"Excluded License" means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, "GPLv3 Licenses" means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.

...

The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part, are governed by or subject to an Excluded License, or that would otherwise cause the Application to be subject to the terms of an Excluded License.

Though the license refers to GPLv3 specifically, it does this only by way of example. GPLv3's predecessor, GPLv2, contains the same requirement to disclose source code and create derivative works. So too does Microsoft's own Reciprocal License. All such licenses are prohibited. The agreement that outlines the rules, and that developers agree to, was last updated in September 2010. The verbiage banning these reciprocal (or viral, depending on perspective) licenses has been in place for many months, and it seems it has slipped by unnoticed until this week. Proof, as if proof were needed, that nobody bothers to read licenses.

Some have interpreted the license even more pessimistically—as banning all open source projects—but this seems inaccurate. It is specifically the requirement to distribute source code (etc.) that is at issue here. Permissive licenses such as the BSD and MIT licenses provide the option of source code distribution, but do not make it compulsory. These licenses are acceptable within the terms of the developer agreement, and Microsoft's only official statement on the issue supports that position:

The Windows Phone Marketplace supports several open source licenses, including BSD, MIT, Apache Software License 2.0, MS-PL and other similar permissive licenses. We revise our Application Provider Agreement from time to time based on customer and developer feedback, and we are exploring the possibility of modifying it to accommodate additional open source-based applications in upcoming revisions.

Though representatives I spoke to refused to answer a straight question with a straight answer and explicitly and unambiguously state whether software covered under GPL version 2 or Microsoft's Reciprocal License was permitted, the terms of the license and the careful avoidance of actually providing a confirmation make it clear enough that this is, in fact, the case.

The wording of the license is nonetheless a curiosity. The particular focus on GPLv3 in particular is surprising, because for GPLv3, it doesn't matter what Microsoft's license says. GPLv3 prohibits what Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation calls tivoization: the use of DRM mechanisms to restrict the ability of a device to use modified binaries. That alone precludes the use of GPLv3 programs on Windows Phone 7.

Every application downloaded from Marketplace is cryptographically signed, and the handsets will not permit installation of any applications that lack suitable signatures. This means that derived works based on GPL-protected projects are, in a sense, useless: users do not have unfettered access to install them.

Such a situation was permitted under the terms of GPLv2, but some within the Free Software community regarded this kind of usage as undesirable. One of the objectives of GPLv3 was to prohibit the use of DRM in this way.

The result is that nobody can distribute GPLv3 software for platforms such as the iPhone or Windows Phone 7, regardless of any specific wording of the respective developer agreements for those platforms.

But the unspoken ban of GPLv2 is another matter entirely. GPLv2 is generally held to be compatible with "tivoization", even if this is unpopular in some quarters. It is specifically Microsoft's ban on licenses with compulsory source distribution that stands in the way of its use on Marketplace.

There is, however, a practical justification for this: the GPL requires commercial distributors of GPL-licensed programs to make available source code. Specifically:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Microsoft is no mere resellers of GPL-licensed software. It actively reproduces and modifies (through inclusion of DRM signatures) the software in its store. To gain the right to do this, it is necessarily a licensee of the software, and as such subject to the terms of the GPL.

Though most people demanding the source code would bypass the middle man and go straight to the developer, this does not absolve Microsoft of its obligation. Given that Microsoft presently has no interest in the source code to third-party Windows Phone 7 applications—developers submit only finished binaries—this is likely a burden that the company would rather avoid. Abiding by the license terms would require the development of an infrastructure to share source code to Marketplace applications.

Apple faces a similar problem, although Apple's terms don't explicitly ban the GPL, and GPL-licensed applications have been placed in the App Store. However, Apple equally fails to honour the terms of the GPL: the company provides no way to download source code to applications distributed in the store. The rights-holders to GPLed software are entitled to demand that any such software be withdrawn, and in at least one high-profile example—VLC—they have done precisely this.

To this practical objection, there is of course likely to be some amount of ideological rejection. Although Microsoft's stance is not quite as hostile towards open source as it once was—note how the company has no problem with permissive licenses that don't place any further obligations on it—reciprocal licenses are still something of a bugbear. Combined with the practical implications of the terms of the GPL and other licenses like it, including its own Reciprocal License, the GPL ban is no great surprise.

Microsoft opens the possibility to changing its position in the future, but to do so will have to solve the source distribution conundrum. Such a move would make Marketplace unambiguously friendlier to GPL-protected software than the App Store presently is, and given that Microsoft needs every edge it can get, there may be wisdom in putting the systems in place to allow source code distribution.

But as things stand, one thing is clear: Apple should do the decent thing and ban GPL software, too. The company presently reaps rewards from allowing GPL-licensed software in the App Store, even though the company has no intention of complying with the terms of that license. Microsoft's stance may not be the pragmatic one. But it's the right one.

202 Reader Comments

I also thought it would be perfectly legal to get the app on MS store and download the source code from the developers' site as long as the app sold carried the GPL license and a note where to get the source code.

I thought the VLC debacle was and still is about the additional restrictions apple's terms of use for their app store places on the software that made it GPL incompatible?

There is, however, a practical justification for this: the GPL requires commercial distributors of GPL-licensed programs to make available source code. Though most people demanding the source code would bypass the middle man and go straight to the developer, this does not absolve Microsoft of its obligation

I'm a bit confused by this. Say, for example, that a traditional software retailer sells an application that uses some GPL-licensed modules. Does the reseller have to make the code available, or is it sufficient for the application documentation to have either the code itself or some URLs pointing to where the code can be downloaded? Does Best Buy have to have a printout of the relevant code stapled to the display rack? If not, why is it any different for Microsoft or Apple?

I'm confused here. If someone sells GPL software through Apple's App Store and there's a link to the developer's page where I can download the source (like with the WordPress app), where's the problem?

There is, however, a practical justification for this: the GPL requires commercial distributors of GPL-licensed programs to make available source code. Though most people demanding the source code would bypass the middle man and go straight to the developer, this does not absolve Microsoft of its obligation

I'm a bit confused by this. Say, for example, that a traditional software retailer sells an application that uses some GPL-licensed modules. Does the reseller have to make the code available, or is it sufficient for the application documentation to have either the code itself or some URLs pointing to where the code can be downloaded? Does Best Buy have to have a printout of the relevant code stapled to the display rack? If not, why is it any different for Microsoft or Apple?

This is what I came to post as well. Peter, you have not cited any legal analysis to support your assertions in this article, and based on my quick Googling at least I'm not convinced you're correct with regards to normal stores, and that leaves the situation in the App Store at least murky. Plenty of standard stores, including as an easy example Amazon, sell software with GPL components. Clear examples include various Linux flavors and Crossover by Codeweavers, a mixed license piece of software that builds on top of the Wine project. Per the GPL/LGPL, Codeweavers offers source code tarballs for download on their site (as well as links to the main project). However, Amazon.com does not appear to offer any source to go with any of this software, nor have I ever even heard so much as a whisper that such a thing would be expected.

I'm further confused by your "commercial" adjective in your description there, because whether distribution is "commercial" or not has nothing to do with the GPL.

Would it not be enough to stipulate that any app using open source code must contain a link to the source code within the application itself, buried in a settings menu perhaps. Then if someone asks Apple for the source code they can just point to the application itself. I'm no licence expert, but in my mind that seems like a completely reasonable state of affairs. If anything having the link to the source code directly in the app is advantageous to having to contact the distributor to get it???

If the developer fully owns the code, then shouldn't they be able to place the version on the Marketplace/App Store under a commercial license, and then redistribute source under GPL on their own website?

This probably still leaves a complication for others who wish to re-use that code in their own app but cannot relicense it, however could clever dual-licensing avoid this?

If the developer fully owns the code, then shouldn't they be able to place the version on the Marketplace/App Store under a commercial license, and then redistribute source under GPL on their own website?

This probably still leaves a complication for others who wish to re-use that code in their own app but cannot relicense it, however could clever dual-licensing avoid this?

If all the code is yours you may license it under whatever license you like and you're free to offer it under any number of licenses if you choose to do so. This only becomes a problem for for third-party AppStore/Market/Marketplace adoptions of desktop applications since they don't control the licensing for the original code - which is the reason for the issues with the VLC app.

Anyhow, I grow more and more skeptical of the GPL every year. I've come to regard it as a bit too strict and I'm more and more leaning towards favouring more lenient licenses such as the ASL.

The complaint that the FSF made against GPL v2 code in the App Store was not based on source code distribution - it's enough to place a link in the app that opens a website in Safari - but rather on the usage restrictions of the App Store itself. In essence, a single App Store account can only be synced with 5 iOS devices (and a few more thinsg like this - a single device can only be linked to 5 accounts, etc). This is of course to avoid the situation where you buy one license of an app and distribute it to thousands of devices and is completely irrelevant for software that is free to distribute, but the FSF considers this to be an additional usage restriction, which is banned in GPL v2.

There is, however, a practical justification for this: the GPL requires commercial distributors of GPL-licensed programs to make available source code. Though most people demanding the source code would bypass the middle man and go straight to the developer, this does not absolve Microsoft of its obligation

I'm a bit confused by this. Say, for example, that a traditional software retailer sells an application that uses some GPL-licensed modules. Does the reseller have to make the code available, or is it sufficient for the application documentation to have either the code itself or some URLs pointing to where the code can be downloaded? Does Best Buy have to have a printout of the relevant code stapled to the display rack? If not, why is it any different for Microsoft or Apple?

There is a specific license for libraries. As for specific "modules", GPL v2 say the following:

Quote:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

The devil, of course, is in the details. "be reasonably considered independent and separate works" is awfully vague and open to debate but the point can be argued that the only thing your hypothetical vendor has to do is provide the full source code of the GPL'ed code and modules. In fact, many appliance software based on Linux code do exactly that.

I think that what Peter is arguing here is that the 3rd party also must provide the source code themselves, not just a link to it. I think that section 3.3 sec. B of the GPL v2 is a bit more lax but not by much (i.e. it's sufficient that you promise that you'll provide the code on request and charge only you own running cost for replaying to such requests, as long as all copiright notice are duely included). Apparently, MS decided, however, that either this interpretation is incorrect or that it is still too much of a burden for them.

That being said, I'm wondering about a couple of things myself::

- If I buy a software at a brick-and-mortar retailer, do the GPL require them to provide me the relevant source code under the same therms or is that only imposed on the publisher ?- If not, what would make an app store any different ? After all, it can be considered a transmission medium only.- Does digitally signing binary code constitute "creating a derivative code" ? It does, after all, produce a different binary file that has properties that you can't reproduce using only the source code and the corresponding publicly available tools.

"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer."

With app stores it is not the developer but the store owner who is distributing the product, and they are doing so commercially, so that paragraph does seem to apply.

One more hitch in the application availability of Windows Phone 7 and one more thing to limit it's usability. It could even limit how quickly things are patched if drivers and other workarounds are GPL based solutions. It amazes me people still use the phone at all.

I'm confused here. If someone sells GPL software through Apple's App Store and there's a link to the developer's page where I can download the source (like with the WordPress app), where's the problem?

Microsoft doesn't want to answer to Linux Zealots who would definitely take them to court.

"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer."

With app stores it is not the developer but the store owner who is distributing the product, and they are doing so commercially, so that paragraph does seem to apply.

Not sure I agree with that: the developer *is* distributing the product, they've just chosen to do so via the store. It's akin to posting an item: you can do it via the mail system or hire a courier: in either case, the delivery agent will charge a processing fee, but is not directly responsible for the contents of the package they're delivering.

Admittedly, the store may have certain generic legal obligations to meet (e.g. health and safety, age restrictions) and you can argue that they have at least some responsibility for ensuring that their suppliers do not infringe on IP rights, but I'd expect that their T&C's explicitly make this a responsibility of the developer. E.g. "By submitting this product for sale on our store, you declare that you either own all of the IP in the product, or that you have licenced the IP and are following the terms of the licence".

One more hitch in the application availability of Windows Phone 7 and one more thing to limit it's usability. It could even limit how quickly things are patched if drivers and other workarounds are GPL based solutions. It amazes me people still use the phone at all.

How is this unique to Windows Phone? As the article points out, if Apple are distributing GPL software then they are probably breaking the licence and shouldn't be. Given Apple's whimsical approach to changing their rules and banning swathes of apps (or business models, development tools, etc.), I'd say Apple are one demand for source code away from banning all GPL apps.

I'd say the same goes for Google's Android Market, too. I don't remember Google offering source-code downloads to me for any of the GPL-derived apps they distribute. (Though at least with Android you're free to install things from other sources, unless Google Market is only linking to, not hosting, the APK files I'd say they are not honoring the licence.)

I'm confused here. If someone sells GPL software through Apple's App Store and there's a link to the developer's page where I can download the source (like with the WordPress app), where's the problem?

Microsoft doesn't want to answer to Linux Zealots who would definitely take them to court.

Microsoft would only have to answer in court if it abused someone else's property.

@the people confused by whether distributors should make source code available: the answer is yes, they should. Anyone who distributes GPL'd code in any form has to make the source code available to people they distribute it to.

Why? Because otherwise it's all too easy for the code to end up unavailable. Here's a couple of examples.

[*]Company A distributes developer X's code. Developer X goes out of business/dies/otherwise disappears. If A is not making the source code available, people who bought the product from A are left without any way to get it.

[*]Project Z is coded by several developers. The project doesn't require copyright assignment, so the code belongs to the individual developers. When Company Y distributes Project Z binaries, it doesn't own the code. Company Y wouldn't be obliged to make available the source code it doesn't own. Y's customers wouldn't have recourse to the developers as the developers only distributed the code to Y.

There are, I'm sure, many other examples - just reading the text of the GPL suggests more!

The alternative would be to oblige the developer of GPL'd code to make the source code available in perpetuity, to anyone who had acquired a license to the code from any source. This would be unduly onerous for the developer (eg answering written requests for the source code) and impractical. Eg for multi-developer projects, each developer could only be obliged to provide their own code, else they'd be obliged to provide full source for every project that used any of their code, ever; and so customers would have to track down every developer who'd contributed extant code. And just think of the confusion that would result from projects incorporating (and then partly modifying) other project's code...

Having distributors make the source available starts to look very reasonable...

Not sure I agree with that: the developer *is* distributing the product, they've just chosen to do so via the store. It's akin to posting an item: you can do it via the mail system or hire a courier

If you send an item to each individual then you are a distributor.

If you give the item to someone else and have them modify it, duplicate it and then send those duplicates to each individual then they are the distributor, not you.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

I'm no expert in these matters but it's hard to see how the developer could be the distributor when the end product users receive is not something the developer could actually produce (the apps won't run unless they are signed by the distributor) and is not being sent via the developer's distribution network (the developer doesn't have one in these cases).

Quote:

in either case, the delivery agent will charge a processing fee, but is not directly responsible for the contents of the package they're delivering.

The delivery agent would be at least jointly responsible for the contents if they had opened the package and then manufactured there own copies of what was inside if -- with their own modifications -- for distribution to end users. Even more so when the developer does not address any end-user directly; it's always Microsoft or Apple who decide to send a package to a user; the developer may not even know who the users are.

Seems most of us had the same thoughts. This one is easy to rectify, if not in idealism at least in practice.

The most reasonable conclusion is that MS and Apple have stores. They don't own the rights to (most of) the products they sell, they are simply the last leg in the delivery chain. They are retailers not distributors.

One would not expect BestBuy to provide the source code for a newly purchased TiVo, NewEgg the source to a WRT54GLS or Amazon the source for a Boxee Box. We definitely wouldn't expect FedEx or other carrier to provide the source even though they were the ones who delivered our post.

The idealists could certainly make an arguement that all these things are required but in the real world they'd have a hard time convinving a judiciary that anyone who touches one of these devices is subject to the licensing terms of the product enclosed within.

When I buy a GPL book, I do not go to the publisher's site for the source. I go to the authors. This has long been considered acceptable.

I hold this acceptance as precedent. The intent of the license isn't about /who/ must perform the source distribution (provided that at least one party to the license does it), but rather that the user has the right to inspect, modify, and distribute the source. The GPL is a user-centric license, based on giving the software rights. As long as the user's rights granted under the license are not violated, the license is complied with.

Why? Because otherwise it's all too easy for the code to end up unavailable.

The thing I find funny is that the GPL seems to prefer making the app unavailable entirely if the source code is lost one day, rather than allowing people to continue using it while it remains useful. I'm sure there is some argument about not allowing people to depend on something they cannot modify at any point in the future, even if they want to and you have to force them not to act against their own intereste, but then isn't that true even of GPL code? Might as well give up and stop using computers entirely if you're that worried about such things...

They have a strange fetish about source code, IMO. Most people, even developers, don't care about source code. It's usually too much effort to get into a large project, and for small project it's easier to re-write them from scratch.

I'm not saying open-source is bad -- I release the source to a bunch of my own stuff in case it is useful to someone, and there's a lot of great stuff released under various OSS licences, including the GPL ones -- but I find it odd that to some people it is the primary goal in itself and a program somehow becomes immoral if the source is lost.

GPL FAQ"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer."

With app stores it is not the developer but the store owner who is distributing the product, and they are doing so commercially, so that paragraph does seem to apply.

I'm genuinely unsure if it's so clearcut though, particularly with the legal meaning of "distribution." Again, stores like Amazon sell boxed copies of GPL'd software. Is Amazon in its role as a store responsible for source code, or is the commercial company creating the binaries, packaging, and selling them? Can they merely "pass along the written offer" (as part of the application or documentation in these examples) and thus fulfill their responsibilities, or are they actually responsible for hosting it? Particularly, what's the actual legal case law for the responsibility of middlemen? I know other's have disagreed with the FSF's interpretations before, and that ultimately it is courts that make the calls on how exactly the law applies.

Ultimately part of my disappointment with this article is that this seems like a very interesting area that touches on a lot of potential stuff, but receives short shrift. I'm sure that with a few hours/days of research most of us could put together a more solid understanding of what might be going on here, but why are we in the comments having to do the research and not the actual author? According to LinkedIn at least, it appears the author was previously a "Digital Preservation Technical Architect at The British Library," not an IP lawyer, so I don't think merely his opinion is of much interest here without some thorough research backing it. I wish there was more meat to sink our teeth into here.

App stores -- at least as long as they're basically the exclusive distribution channel for a platform -- really need something similar to the "common carrier" rules applied to them. Developers are responsible for what they upload, including source code for copyleft code; wronged parties can send a takedown notice to the distributor (ie Apple, MS, ...), etc.

Worrying about technicalities of the GPL -- like whether MS needs to redistribute the source code or whether a link to the app author's website containing the source is enough -- worrying about that stuff seems silly when the distributors have a hard time dealing with much more straightforward copyvios like with that game recently.

If you want to see how a Microsoft booster feels about it, then that is what you just got, and keep reading the Peter Bright article.

"...Solve the source distribution conundrum..."What conundrum? If you are clever enough to be able to send a binary down the pipe to the phone, then how can it be difficult to send the source the same way.

Bit like DHL saying yeah we can send a 2 feet square box, oh but your box is brown, we can only send non-brown 2 feet square boxes. It is just data, and it is just a pipe..

All this from a company that is bigging up it's cloud computing offering but it is unable to send a .zip file on request to a users phone? I'm not buying it.

Translation: Microsoft and Apple just want to take and never give users Freedom they deserve.

PS: They banned all Free Software, not just GPL or even just copyleft. Thier "Marketeplace" will never distribute source, nor give way how to install modified versions, so it doesn't matter if code was previously BSD or GPL. Once put in "Marketplace", that version of the program is proprietary.

Let's not find more excuses to limit open source softwar use. Arguing that apple modifies the software by putting it in their app story it cutting hairs. Let people get the software and have the developers link to the free code.

Hatred are going to hate but stop trying to cripple other peoples choice of platform.

Stallman and the FSF continue to broaden the political goals of their software licenses. They want software to be free in addition to open source. There were a lot of defections from GPLv2 and there will be even more from GPLv3.

I'm genuinely unsure if it's so clearcut though, particularly with the legal meaning of "distribution."

It is difficult, to be sure. In Amazon's case, they aren't modifying the product before sending it on, so that might be different to what we're talking about anyway. Or maybe not.

Amazon certainly seem like *a* distributor (from Retail to End User) in the chain. The people who supply them boxed copies are also distributors within the same chain. From my quick reading, both of them would have to make a written offer of source code to the end user as they are both commercial distributors.

Digital distribution may be different, but I can't see how Amazon would ever not be considered *a* distributor. That is just my own understanding of what the words mean, though; I may be completely wrong.

This boils down to my biggest frustration with the GPL:

It's really, really, really f***ing difficult to understand what you are allowed to do and what you're required to do. Virtually none of it has been tested in court. Most of the wording is extremely vague and/or applies to situations quite different from the one you are trying to reason with. The GNU and FSF websites are full of emotionally loaded "explanations" of the licence which leave things incredibly grey and are more interested in passing on their value judgements on certain activities than in actually explaining the licences.

Microsoft needs to give a straight answer to this. The speculation is not helping its case. Of course their answer might well lead to the need for a straight answer/clarification of the GPL, which is pretty shitty in its ambiguity.

edit:

Quote:

This boils down to my biggest frustration with the GPL:

It's really, really, really f***ing difficult to understand what you are allowed to do and what you're required to do. Virtually none of it has been tested in court. Most of the wording is extremely vague and/or applies to situations quite different from the one you are trying to reason with. The GNU and FSF websites are full of emotionally loaded "explanations" of the licence which leave things incredibly grey and are more interested in passing on their value judgements on certain activities than in actually explaining the licences.

Exactly. The GPL tries to use "plain" language to describe requirements that are often fairly non-trivial logically to cover percieved loopholes. There's a reason why real licenses use legal language.

"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer."

With app stores it is not the developer but the store owner who is distributing the product, and they are doing so commercially, so that paragraph does seem to apply.

So, I think it is fairly obvious that this applies to the developer, not the store. Otherwise Newegg and Best Buy would also need to provide links to source code whenever a customer buys software. If I go to Best Buy and pick up Crysis, and it uses whatever, customized OpenGL 4.0 source, then what? Best Buy has to print the URL to the source on the receipt?

I would imagine any court of law would consider the terms fulfilled if the software contained a link to the sources in the About menu. Otherwise any store, brick and mortar or otherwise, which sells software that uses customized GPL 3 sources, would be unable to sell the shit if they didn't provide the sources.

This is a totally bogus article. Apple does not have to provide the source at all. They are just the distribution medium for the developer as is every other distribution medium (Amazon, CD burning companies, etc.). There has never been a burden for them to distribute the source. That is just insane.

Woohoo, all the open source haters are out in force today. Thanks, Peter, for yet more anti-GPL, anti-FOSS drek.

This is case in point why I don't like closed distribution models like the App Store and Marketplace, that are combined with a refusal on the part of the device/OS vendor to give the user ANY freedom when it comes to sourcing software.

None of this would matter in the slightest if end users could load software without visiting the store, but neither Microsoft nor Apple will permit that on mobile devices. And you can rest assured that if they could push this level of control even farther up the stack, they would in a heartbeat.

Putrid Polecat wrote:

So, I think it is fairly obvious that this applies to the developer, not the store. Otherwise Newegg and Best Buy would also need to provide links to source code whenever a customer buys software.

Do Newegg/Best Buy place additional terms on top of the licenses used by the software vendor? Last I checked they didn't, so they aren't actually responsible for anything. Both the App Store and Marketplace add additional terms the user must agree to that violate the GPL outright.